Topic: Palestine & israel? What do you think about that situation? - page 12. (Read 15034 times)

no. israel gets away with its crimes. uncivilised third world savages get called out on their savagery.
when the third world savages act up we put sanctions on their countries and/or warrants out for their leaders arrests or at bare minimum tell them we disapprove of what they're doing. with israel nothing is done to bring it into line. bibi gets to spit in the eye of the american president and other world leaders and there will be no un sanctions, the aid will not be cut and the kenyan ape will still show up grovelling at the next aipac conference.
the clear standard is the right to self determination. all saudi citizens have rights in their country. most palestinians living under israeli rule don't.

depends what definition of the world you're using but it wasn't a self governing entity with a distinct national identity separating its people from other arabs which is what you're obviously getting at. it did have borders and legislature and passports and currency and its citizens weren't turfed out by the rulers to make way for hook nosed brooklyn shlomos with m16s.

Yes it is obvious than Palestine was a country, read Wikipedia page (if you want). 


Now I really should want to know what J. J. Phillips will say regard this "incredible" news for him, do you know that israel is still invading the Palestine lands or not? I don't like the israeli politic about this fact.

Palestine was always a country. Ever heard about Mandatory Palestine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

After the Ottomans were driven out of the Levant, Palestine was administrated as a British mandate. Also, notice that the name is "Palestine" and not Israel.

"We discovered it! How the fsck can you discover something when another mufa is already living there??"

- Eddie Griffen

No one wants else wants to try to answer this? Is it because you all agree Palestine never was a country?

You're saying they're unique among the "supposedly civilised countries we think of as western." This clearly implies you have one standard for the "supposedly civilised countries we think of as western" and another standard for those who aren't. That's a double standard.

There's no clear standard by which the West Bank and Gaza are occupied but Saudi Arabia is not. The people who control Saudi Arabia gained that control by conquest. In addition, the ancestors of those who control Saudi Arabia today destroyed the religions of those who lived there before.

its (1) i am disagreeing with, the part where you accused me of holding them to a higher standard. i don't.

possibly not unique in the world but certainly unique among the supposedly civilised countries we think of as western. david cameron could never get away with saying he wants to preserve britain as a white majority country but when bibi says the same thing about israel and jews no one bats an eyelid.

israel must be preserved as a jewish country at all costs but for europeans americans and australians race is a social construct and we are told by politicians of all stripes that the flooding of our countries with third world immigrants who bring only poverty and crime is progress

because jews are special. because the holohoax. because iran is hitler.

no country on earth recognises the legitimacy of israeli settlements beyond the green line so yes, the whole world.

saudi isn't occupied territory and neither is the vatican or any other bullshit irrelevant example you're going to come up with.

have no interest in getting into a back and forth about how mean other countries are and why does everyone pick on poor israel. these other countries aren't getting billions of dollars worth of weapons from america and germany along with diplomatic cover at the un nor do they have superpowers going to war on their behalf.

every deal the israelis have offered the palestinians involve israel keeping a fifth to a quarter of the west bank and virtually all of the illegal settlements and having control of the roads leading to those settlements and the borders and the sea ports and the airspace forever. that's not a state its a bantustan.

Yes, it refers to you. Everytime you post I think of an old David Bowie song. I'm closer to the Golden Dawn...

I made three separate statements in what you quoted:

(1) You openly say you hold Jews to a different standard.
(2) You have a problem with Jews.
(3) You believe this attitude is justified historically.

I was basing this on an earlier statement of yours, but when I went back to requote it, I think it only justifies (2) and (3), which you probably don't disagree with. (If you don't have a problem with Jews and you don't think having a problem with Jews is historically justifiable, then you're seriously miscommunicating. Your signature and avatar are pretty fucking clear.) Here's the quote from you:


I didn't remember that in the second paragraph where you admit that Jews are held to a different standard, it's a sarcastic admission to say that the world allows them uniquely to be evil racists.

By the way, I'm planning to visit Mecca next year. Do you want me to bring you anything? Oh, right. I'm not allowed there. If the world didn't have double standards, wouldn't that fact (among many others) make Saudi Arabia an "apartheid state"? Doesn't really matter. The whole world knows Mecca belongs to the pagans.

To address your point in this message though, the "whole world" doesn't say certain land belongs to "someone else." It's disputed territory. The reason it's disputed is because the borders have never been agreed upon. There are no internationally recognized borders (if such a concept even has a meaning). The closest possibilities were the UN partition plan in 1947 and the almost-deal in 2000. Both times the Palestinians said no.

Let's analyze this "whole world."

There's the Muslim world. That's a huge chunk. (The Islamic world controls everything in the UN except the Security Council, in case anyone's trying to figure out the UN issue.) Of course Muslims believe all of Israel should be under Islamic rule. Muslims believe any land that was ever under Islamic rule at some point in the past is "stolen" from them. (There's sometimes a push to restore Islamic rule to Spain, i.e., al-Andalus. Is Spain "stolen land"? How long before "the whole world agrees" it is.) And, of course, the problems Muslims have with Jews date back to the time of Muhammad.

European countries tend to support the Palestinians. This is due to a combination of factors, with latent Jew-hatred playing an important role. More practical concerns are that they've dealt with Palestinian terrorism (e.g., Black September in Munich) and found it easier to just appease the terrorists. This has been amplified over the decades due to the rapid influx/increase in the Muslim population in Europe and the desire of leftist parties to get these populations into their political coalitions.  The Arab oil embargo in the 70s also played a role. It happened over time. Europe tended to support Israel the first decades after WW2. Well, what remained of Europe. The book Eurabia from some years ago gives a lot of background about the European situation and how it developed.

The former Soviet block was often allied with Arab countries largely because the US was close to Israel. Plus the Soviets spent decades trying to get rid of their Jews. It's natural they wouldn't be sympathetic to Israel. (Many Israelis escaped persecution in Russia.)

Then there's subsaharan Africa. Just kidding. They've never heard of the issue.

I'm not sure what the situation is in South America. There was recently an issue where the Argentinian (leftist) leader had a prosecuter killed because he was investigating Iranian ties to a massacre of Jews in Argentina some years ago. Plus lots of Nazis escaped to that region. But, like I say, it's not something I've looked deeply into.

Finally let's consider the two big players: Israel and the US. Whether or not some of the disputed territory actually "belongs" to the Palestinians in any meaningful metaphysical sense, it's clear that the leaders in Israel and the US have demonstrated a willingness to cede control over some of the land if it leads to a lasting peace agreement. I think the idea of Palestinians living in peace next to a secure Israel is laughable, but Israel's made several peace deals with neighbors before.

You know, it's strange that since Jews control the power structure of the world that this issue is such a big deal. It seems like they would use their Jew power to make people focus on other things. Or maybe I don't see the brilliance of their Jew plan. /s  (The slash s indicates I'm being sarcastic in the paragraph. That means I'm pretending to have different beliefs that I have in order to show how silly the beliefs are.)

assume this refers to me. how's telling israel to stop building settlements on land the whole world says belongs to someone else and return to its internationally recognised borders holding it to a different standard?

The United States contribute close to 22% of the United Nations budget ($532 million in 2010). That is a very significant amount, but nothing like unavoidable. Some other country, such as China or India might be able to make up that amount. China is having forex reserves worth trillions of dollars. Half a billion dollars is not a very big amount for them.

In case it's not clear to anyone, Darkblock has introduced a new statement:

(ISRUS) Israel controls the US.

Also, there is a second implied statement that ("should be clear"):

(JRW) Jews rule the world.

I can offer counterevidence to this if anyone is interested. For now I'll just say it's the kind of thing Nazis believe, so I'm not surprised to see it in this thread. The Nazis represented the Jewish control over the world as an octopus. You've probably seen similar drawings. Some loonies these days refer to "ZOG" ("Zionist Occupied Government"). It's basically a run of the mill conspiracy theory. Like that mossad was behind 9/11 or a secret race of reptilians rule the world.

Israel doesn't "control" the US. (If they did, why the fuck would Obama be President of the US?) The evidence clearly supports the following conclusion:

(IUS) Idiots control the US.

I can back that up with a hell of a lot of evidence.

Very good! Now, does everyone see what happened here? There was a clear statement that can be true or false: (USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN.

I presented two other true-or-false style statements as evidence that the US does not control the UN. (See my response above.) While MZ has ignored my two statements (naughty!), he has advanced the argument by offering different statements as evidence that the US actually does control the UN. The two statements are:

(US$UN) The US gives a lot of money to the UN.
(UNUS$) The UN wants the US to keep giving the UN a lot of money.

(First of all, please notice that instead of ignoring his statements, I am responding to them. That's what happens in a discussion. I thought I should point that out since it seems to be unfamiliar territory for many of you. Or if that's too controversial we could call it disputed territory.)

Now, it's not clear just from the statements (US$UN) and (UNUS$) what this has to do with Israel, but let me make the following statement that I suspect is supposed to be implied by the two explicit statements (US$UN) and (UNUS$).

(UNUS$ISR) The UN makes some of its decisions with respect to the Middle East conflict so that the US continues to give the UN a lot of money.

Is that what you're asserting MZ? I'll assume for now it is.

Now, I haven't checked (US$UN) in a long time, but I read some years ago that in fact the US is one of the major financial backers of the UN. (It's one of the reason many Americans on the right complain about the UN.) Without objection then:

(US$UN) Status: True.

It's also clear enough to me that the UN would be very unhappy if the US stopped giving it money (and especially if New York made it pay for the real estate it uses!). So let's also concede this:

(UNUS$) Status: True.

However, neither of these necessarily imply (UNUS$ISR). Consider the following two statements:

(UNGA) The UN general assembly has passed many resolutions against Israel.
(UNHMR) The UN human rights council is notoriously anti-Israel.

This is counterevidence against (UNUS$ISR). In other words, I present those two statements as evidence that (UNUS$ISR) is false. If the UN were making decisions based on US dollars, why would the general assembly and the human rights council behave this way? Aren't they afraid of losing those precious dollars?

Evidence of (UNUS$ISR) being true would be of the following form:

There is an action A which is relevant to the conflict. The US is threatening to withdraw funding for action A if the UN takes action A.

Simply say what action A is. I've never heard of the US government seriously threatening to withdraw funding from the UN (as much as many American taxpayers would love it), but I'll be open-minded that it could be quietly happening behind the scenes.

What is this action A the UN is unwilling to take out of fear of losing US dollars?

In case it isn't clear, I'm asking for what the action A is. So in your respond you should say an action A. It should be such that the UN could take it but is unwilling to do so because of US dollars. It should also be related to the conflict under discussion. And it should be an action. It might help if you start the sentence with "The action A I have in mind is..."

The only kinds of actions I can imagine (though I see no connection to US$) is the vetoing of Security Council resolutions. Here's a Wikipedia page about the related Negroponte Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine

However, the passing or veto of a UN Security Council seems like an irrelevant action. It doesn't change anything about the facts of the conflict. Are you wanting the UN to send some troops to fight Israel?

As an aside since you brought it up: I'm not anti-German (not that I've met many Germans). I'm anti-Nazi. Nazis come from many nationalities, as this thread makes clear. The German people in the 1930s and 1940s were not generally innocent though. It's a bit of an oversimplification that the Germans "voted for" the Nazis, but it's largely true. To relate it to the topic, I'll note that Hamas is by many measures worse than the Nazis and the Palestinians voted for them more clearly than the Germans voted for the Nazis. In a Palestinian election adopting the nickname "Hitler" helps you win an election. (I didn't make that up. It happened.)

agreee. And ISR controls US. So the hierarchy of worldcontrol should be clear. NOBODY will EVER do/say something against ISR, as it would be either interpreted as antisemitic or as "against the goals of the global community"....

Nope. US has a lot of money. If US goes from UN, it will be hard for UN to stand in financial things.


I ain't anti-Israel or anti-US. I have friends from that country(ies) too. So what about your anti-German?

However, just my 2 satoshis.

True-or-false statement:

(USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN.

Fact: The US has veto power on the security council, as do 4 other nations. The US "controls" the UN in the same sense as Russia, Britain, France and China. The US has no veto power over the general assembly and they regularly vote for resolutions against Israel. So, the US does not control the UN.
Status: (USUN) is false.

It doesn't matter anyway, since the UN has very little power (fortunately).

True-or-false statement:

(IUS) Israel is being helped by the US.

Fact: Israel and the US have been allies for many decades. They have worked together for many years on many different things, including militarily. I don't think anyone denies this. (Someone could argue against it by pointing to cases where the US has helped Israel's enemies, but it's clear that the US often "helps" both sides in a conflict. The US has had its fingers in a lot of pies since WW2.)
Status: (IUS) is true.

A little problem though, by saying the US is helping Israel, you may have shifted the "worst enemy of Muslims" status from Israel to the US. Maybe you guys should debate which one you want to have the status. Just to keep things simple.

As a social statement, you have confirmed that you are anti-Israel and anti-US. You are allowed to remain part of the in-group. Congratulations!

US indirectly controls UN. So when it comes about UN and few other things, I think Israel is being helped by US. Any comments on this?

You can find something from this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+helped+by+US

A "presupposition" of a question is an implicit (unstated) true-or-false statement which must be accepted for the question to make sense. A famous example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" The presupposition is that you used to beat your wife.

Also, if by "worst enemy of Muslims" we mean someone who undermines the fundamentals of the faith, I'd nominate whoever made these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJdu4HV-Ng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaTHfoyJow

Funny stuff. Unless you believe bullshit.

You're trolling me by continuing to write "israel". That's funny. Nazis aren't usually known for their sense of humor.

Anyone who reads through this thread can clearly see there's been hardly any discussion of the conflict. Maybe part of the problem is that people don't even know how such a discussion would look.

Let's suppose we were discussing a car. I said, "That car is blue." You said, "That car is red." These are statements that can be true or false. How do we determine which is true? Can they both be true? Can they both be false? What are the dependencies? Some other statements are not "true or false" statements, like "Have a great day."

Now maybe I say the car is blue and you say the car is red because we're pointing at different cars. In that case there's just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up as part of the discussion. Or maybe we're pointing at the same car but we have different definitions of "red" and "blue." In that case the car could be both JJ-blue and sn0w-red but not JJ-red and not sn0w-blue. In that case we're disagreeing about the use of language, but not about the state of the world. Finally it could be that we're pointing at the same car, have the same definitions of colors, and yet still disagree. In that case, we would start considering other relevant statements.

Other relevant statements would again be of the true or false variety, but would be relevant because they could provide evidence about the color of the car.

My first post on this thread contained a sequence of questions and a link at which a reader who wished to be better informed could learn more. The only person who responded to this was the out-of-the-closet Nazi.

My primary assertions in this thread have been:
(1) The reason Israel is so criticized is that it is held to a different standard than other countries/peoples.
(2) The reason Israel is held to a different standard is because it is Jewish and people have a problem with Jews.

The out-of-the-closet Nazi gave good, informed responses to the questions I posed, but this only reinforces my assertions (1) and (2). Why? Because the out-of-the-closet Nazi openly says he holds Jews to a different standard and that he has a problem with Jews. (He believes this attitude is appropriate because of some historic problems he has with Jewish people.)

Now maybe all of you believe (1) and (2) but you think you would look bad admitting it, or maybe you don't know how to argue against it. It should be clear to anyone paying the least amount of attention to the world that for every "bad" thing Israel has done there is some other nation that has done something far worse. Why the focus on Israel? Well, because of (1) and (2), obviously.

There have been very few meaningful true-or-false style assertions in this thread, but one was this:


The term "worst enemy of Muslims" is a property, like a car being red or blue. Now, how can we determine if something is the "worst enemy of Muslims"? Probably we have different criteria, and it's not something I'd like to spend a lot of time thinking about. To be honest, I'd think the "worst enemy of Muslims" is anyone who presents information leading to the conclusion that Muhammed was not a prophet, as the undermines the fundamentals of their religion. I'm not aware of Israel going on a campaign of undermining the idea that Muhammed was a prophet. (To my dismay, Israeli spokesmen never defend cartoonists who even draw Muhammed.)

But, let's take a different criteria. Let's say the "worst enemy of Muslims" is a title that belongs to the group that kills the most Muslims. Do any of you seriously think that if we count the dead Israel will even be in the top 10? Look at ISIS. Look at various civil wars. Look at how Jordan dealt with Black September. The only way to get Israel to the top of that list is to consider Israel to be the "real cause" of the deaths. For example, ISIS is killing lots of Muslims, but someone could say the reason ISIS is killing so many Muslims is because of something Israel did or didn't do (or both). So then the blame gets shifted to Israel. This kind of blame-shifting happens when the topic actually gets discussed, but for the most part what's happening is a social phenomenon.

Someone says:
The purpose of this statement is not to be examined as something true or false. The purpose is to communicate to the board: this is what our bitcointalk politics subforum believes. Adopt these beliefs or leave. It's a lot like religion that way. Well, except bitcointalk can remove your account while religious fanatics cut your fucking head off, so it's a little different.

Now let's go all the way back to the OP which contained this question:


I'm assuming "like Palestinan" is intended to be "like Palestine." You have a presupposition in this question. It's subtle. The presupposition is that Israel invaded a country called Palestine. The first of my many questions in my first post was this one:

When was Palestine a country?

The out-of-the-closet Nazi confirmed that it was never a country in the sense the term is used today. Now maybe you think it was a country in some other sense and at some time in the past. If so, what is that sense and what was that time period? If someone were to give a new definition of "being a country", then we could also apply it to other regions at other times in the past. It might have consequences you don't intend. It might mean Kurdistan was/is a country and that certain Muslim groups/countries have spent years invading them and stealing their land. It might even imply Israel was a country at some time in the past and was invaded and its land was stolen. What a wrench in the works that would cause!

Fortunately you don't have to think about any of these issues deeply. Just signal that you're anti-Israel so you're accepted.

TLDR: You're not talking about the conflict. You're confirming to each other that you're against Israel so everyone knows you "belong". Your statements are intended to signal this "belonging" rather than be "true or false." You're all ignorant of history and happily so. And you're all Nazis (in or out of closets) who should die in a fire.

PS: I thought some more about how to bring about the extinction of the Nazi human species. There could be a chemical introduced into the ecosystem which causes chemical castration so that humans cannot effectively reproduce. Surely someone's done some work on this before. Maybe someone can point me towards it. Thanks! If such a chemical castration idea worked, we could finally have Peace in our Time!

I hope your words are wrong but it seems that is what will happen between Palestine and Israel. No one want to resolve their internal conflic, also the UN.